Lanzer v. Louisville
2016 Ohio 8071
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kevin Lanzer was hired as Louisville Fire Chief (at-will) in June 2012; the department conducted statutory fire‑safety inspections.
- Captain Rob Yoder inspected a building owned by William Jeffries and cited Fire Code violations; Jeffries complained about inspection form color and asked to be notified before inspections of his properties.
- Lanzer directed inspectors to notify Jeffries before inspecting his properties; Yoder later re‑inspected without giving the promised notice.
- Jeffries pressured the City Manager and City Council; Council told City Manager Ault to fire Lanzer (or Ault would be removed). Ault, who has charter authority to hire/fire, terminated Lanzer.
- Lanzer sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, tortious interference with employment, and civil conspiracy; the trial court granted summary judgment/dismissal for defendants and Lanzer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lanzer's firing violated a clear public policy (Greeley/Leininger test) | Lanzer: termination punished enforcement of Fire Code and interference with statutory inspection duties; cites R.C./Adm. Code protecting inspections | City/Ault: inspections complied with law; alleged promise of notice was internal policy, and termination was permissible for breaking that promise; no clear statutory bar to termination | Court: No clear public policy violated; termination for failing to honor City’s promise to Jeffries does not overcome at‑will rule — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Ault is liable for tortious interference with employment | Lanzer: Ault acted to protect his own job (outside scope) and maliciously caused termination | Ault: as City Manager he had charter authority to terminate; supervisors cannot be liable for interfering with employment they supervise | Court: Ault acted within supervisory duties under City Charter; supervisor immunity applies — summary judgment for Ault affirmed |
| Whether conspiracy claim survives given underlying claims fail | Lanzer: Council/others conspired with Jeffries to remove him | Defendants: conspiracy depends on viable underlying torts; absent those, conspiracy fails | Court: Underlying wrongful‑termination and interference claims fail; conspiracy claim fails — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Jeffries is liable for tortious interference/civil conspiracy or immune under Noerr‑Pennington | Lanzer: Jeffries lobbied Council to terminate Lanzer and improperly influenced the firing | Jeffries: his communications to Council were petitioning activity protected by Noerr‑Pennington; he did not request an illegal act | Court: Noerr‑Pennington immunity applies to petitioning City Council; dismissal of Jeffries affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (summary judgment standard review)
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maint. Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (Ohio 1990) (creates public‑policy wrongful termination exception)
- Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 1995) (clarifies elements and analysis for wrongful termination)
- Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311 (Ohio 2007) (sets four‑part test for public‑policy discharge)
- Anderson v. Minter, 32 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1972) (supervisor immunity for tortious interference)
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1995) (definition of civil conspiracy)
- Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1993) (Noerr‑Pennington immunity principle)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1965) (origin of the Noerr‑Pennington petitioning immunity)